The dangers of giving guns to whoever chooses to buy one... I think there should be a law that you attend police training if you want to wield a gun... so you get people who know what they're doing and don't shoot kids (and gangsters with impressive gun-toting skills back to the old drawing board...)
I totally agree with this. I also think that people should take an IQ test and attain a minimum score before being permitted to breed.
Colorado is just as bad. Google "Make My Day" laws. We have have actually had people shot in someones yard and dragged into the house! "Gee, Officer he broke into my house and ..." Sorry to bother you citizen, we'll just take the body and go! John
He had every right too. In Texas its legal to shoot anyone who comes onto your property with unlawful intent. Although yes, this man took it to the extreme and probably should have been charged, the law still protects him because he was protecting his property which was broken into. Honestly, I have to say I do disagree with what his man did, but I also have to admit my father and I for that matter, have both fired at illegal immigrants who use our property to cross into the US. While we have never actually hit anyone, we just fire above their heads or at the ground to make them run the opposite direction, I would have no problem with putting a bullet into one of them if they came at me. Haha. And people think we joke when we say one of our state slogans is, "Don't mess with Texas."
It's not one of our state slogans, it's an advertising slogan created for an anti-litter campaign. -monkey
aw, cm'on folks, texas isn't that bad; not everyone is a gun-toting vigilante here. while i agree that it was a probably a bad idea to try him for murder, and that manslaughter probably would have been more appropriate, i just have to wonder why these kids were so desperate for a bite to eat that they would burgle a house to fill their bellies? was that all they were there for? where were their parents? really, it should never have come to this situation anyway. so how many of you folks own a firearm of any sort?
No big deal. The kids would have grown up to be criminals, and would have been shot in a drug war anyway. This way we save money and we save the environment (Feeding people pollutes). (I just love generalization )
Good guy. He did his state a service, and sholdn't have had a trial for it. A man's home should be his castle, and others should break into that castle at their peril, and without their rights to anything.
I'm guessing if you accidentally shot one you'd have problem making up a story about him coming at you either.
I can't believe people actually bought the whole "he lunged at me" thing. He was a kid for crying out loud. He shot him int the back? Hardly self defense. Anyone who has half a brain can figure out that he lost his temper and shot him. Tresspassing or not, he had time to call the cops if he had them on their knees. He not only murdered him, it was an execution by the sound of it.
I own a handful of firearms. The shotguns were gifts and handguns were inheritances from family members. The current armory(armoury?) consists of 3 handguns and 2 shotguns. Handguns: 1908 Colt 380 Pocket hammerless semi-auto, 7 rds .380 ACP (personal defense of choice, but I don't carry) 40s era police revolver .38 caliber, 5 rds .38 S&W (needs to be taken to the range, only shot once) Taurus long barrel .22 revolver, 9 rds .22 rimfire (great for target practice, ammo's cheap as chips) Shotguns: Remington Model 1170(i think), semi-automatic 20 gauge, 3 rds (used for small game - gamebird, squirrel, rabbit, etc.) Berreta 12 Gauge, 3 rds (large game - deer) In my home state of Kentucky we also have self-defense laws that allow people to shoot dangerous home invaders without fear of prosecution. Defining 'dangerous' in the context of this case will be difficult for me since I would rather hear all sides before making a decision. But I know that for me, I would defend myself and my family with deadly force if there was a home invader.
Haha I know. But a lot of people, including me, use it for other reasons. Its been semi adopted I guess. Rather fitting if you ask me! I wouldn't have to. I'd be in my legal right to if I did. If you think what we do is bad then you have no idea. There are vigilante groups all along the boarder, even outside of Texas, who will shoot any illegal on sight. Hell, my neighbor, who is a vet of WW2, has a fence line on his property with signs saying, "If you cross this fence line you run the risk of being shot" in Spanish. I can assure you that's not just a warning - its a promise. I have to admit the old man's mindset from growing up in a different era really shows, but he loves his state and his country and I can't see anything wrong with that.
A bit extreme, but nothing really wrong with what he did, as Texan law states he has the right to defend his home. I guess it was the decision of the amount of force used in doing so. How about how badly fuct over we law abiding citiziens get here in the UK? A burglar can break into your home, start stealing your things and as he leaves, trips and falls and break his leg and then *sue* you. Now that's criminal!
Perhaps the Native Americans should have adopted a similar policy. The Massasoit's hospitality towards the Plymouth Pilgrims in 1621 was a bad move. Your neighbour may love "his" country, but he forgets that his ancestors, too, were once illegal immigrants chancing it in search of a better life. As for the vigilantes, I suspect they just like shooting people. You decide for yourself whether that is a standard to aspire to (and how do you reliably identify an illegal immigrant on sight?). Don't get me wrong. I know that law enforcement is thinly spread on the border, and that therefore you have to rely on home defense. I have no problem with you keeping an eye on your property with a gun at the ready in case you're dealing with armed smugglers rather than some wetbacks. But shooting a firearm at people is very, very serious business. Doing it to protect your home and family from crime is one thing; doing it because you begrudge someone a chance to do menial, unsafe, underpaid work for peanuts in a Texan sweat shop is another. If you have to worry about some poor, uneducated Mexican who can barely read or speak English taking your jobs (and women), frankly you should be deeply embarrassed, not pissed off. I'd rather not be the one to fire the opening shot. Even if you fire into the ground, or over their heads, they may not know that. Bullets can end up in strange places, and there may be families with children involved. And one day, someone may decide to pull a gun and return fire because they have a family to protect also. It's also a myth. He was on your property without legal right or permission, so he can't sue. Same as the railways can't be sued for you getting killed by loitering on the tracks.
The reason we shoot at them isn't because we're worried about them taking jobs or taking our women. The reason we shoot is because out state is already over populated(something the Native Americans didn't have to contend with, illegal or not) with illegal immigrants. When they cross, these people don't speak any English and can't find jobs. They come to America believing that they'll find jobs that Americans don't want to do. Sadly, they soon find out those crap jobs are already taken by illegals before them. So what do they do? They turn to crime, selling drugs and stealing to make a living, or do absolutely nothing besides sit on their butts leeching off everyone else. So not only are they adding nothing to our society, but they are detracting from it. I know it sounds like I'm super against people coming to America. I'm not. I'm against people, any people, coming to the US and not doing anything to help this country. That is what I hate. That is why I feel so strongly about this type of thing. So if it takes shooting a few rounds in the dirt in front of them, I can do it with a clear conscience. If someone wants to come to the US the legal way, I'm all for it. I think its great people want to come to the US and try to make their lives better. And before someone says, "But the US won't let people from Mexico in!" I know that. The reasons why I've already stated too. Simply put the majority of these people, not all, can't even pass the minimum to enter the US, why would the government grant them citizenship? Honestly, I would challenge anyone to come live near the boarder and see the things I see everyday and not feel the way I do.
ok, as a texan, i will state right out that the state of texas does not approve, even tacitly, of the shooting of immigrants, illegal or otherwise (at least as far as i know). illegal immigrants do not have a lock on turning to crime, selling drugs and stealing to make a living, or doing absolutely nothing besides sitting on their butts leeching off everyone else. i'm pretty sure plenty of proud texans do that every day. it is the most serious business there is. rule 2 of firearms safety: never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. pointing a gun at a person is considered a deadly threat (as rule 1 is: all guns are always loaded. even if they are not, treat them as if they are.). and to answer my own question from before (full disclosure?): i too am a proud firearm owner. i have a cz sp-01 pistol in 9mm, a ruger 10/22 rifle in .22, and an ar-15 in 5.56mm. i enjoy shooting, and i am currently saving up money to get my CCW permit.
they broke in, one was shot and killed, in texas you have to expect if you break into someones home to steal something there is a good chance your going to die. The boys claiming he put them on there knees thing is hearsay and although its believable and the boy was shot at close range, which any shooting in a home is close range, It becomes the burglars word against the home owners. The fact of the matter is the kids broke in, he had every right to shoot them on sight. On another note Why is it half the post on here seem to become screw all American's because something bad happened there.... seriously?
You are buying into several myths here. One is that somehow current illegal immigrants are more of a problem to you than your ancestors were to the Native Americans. This proposition is so laughable that I can't believe I even bother to point out to you what happened to the Native Americans: wiped out by European diseases that they had no immunological defense against (even before 1621), and by the genocidal actions of the new illegal European settlers. Where are the Natives now? Right. The second is that Texas is overpopulated. Texas ranks 26th in population density (79.6 people per square mile) of all US states. Bangladesh is overpopulated (1045 people per squre mile). Holland is overpopulated (395 people per square mile). Texas is practically deserted. The third is that illegal immigrants turn to crime in the US. In fact, studies show that they are less inclined to turn to crime: But there are unintended consequences to making the crossing harder: The reasons for the rise in violent crime are outlined here. As illegal immigration becomes harder (and the risk of death higher --a deliberate policy aimed at deterrence), it becomes more reliant on the involvement of professional smugglers who charge ever higher prices. Professional smugglers are nasty *******s: they are often also involved in drug smuggling, carry weapons and not afraid to use them (remember, these may be the people you're shooting at). Basically, escalation ensues. Because of this difficulty and cost, once across the border illegal immigrants are less likely to leave for home again. They must also stay longer to finance the smuggling of their relatives. Increased border inforcement may be keeping more illegal immigrants in the US, than out. Other studies make spurious links between increases in crime and increases in illegal immigration, but interestingly this seems to happen only if you make it harder for them to find work, access education and integrate into society. Yet other articles point to the higher arrest rates of illegal immigrants --but gloss over the fact (quite deliberately, I noticed) that most of these are for immigration-related offences rather than actual crimes. You have to employ some common sense here: why do these people bother to come to the US? They come to find work. If they're inclined to criminal activity, there's plenty to go around in their own country. The fourth myth is that illegal immigrants "leech" of society. Research shows that illegal immigrants may, in fact, contribute more to the economy than they take out: If you think about it, it makes sense. No supply without demand: illegal immigrants are attracted to the US because there will be unscrupulous people who will employ them. And they employ hem because they are cheap labour. In a free market economy, that's what it's all about. Note that Texas has not passed a single law targeting employers who hire them. Since Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, enforcement has been lacklustre to say the least. That's for a reason --illegal immigrants are good for business. Between 8 percent and 9 percent of the Texas workforce is composed of illegal aliens – many who perform agriculture, restaurant and construction jobs. Critics say cracking down on employers who hire illegals could seriously hurt the state economy. In 1990, only 8% of INS resources were spent on workplace raids. In 1998, this had gone down to 2%. Employer fines declined from 7115 in 1998 to only 178 in 2000, with the number of illegal immigrants arrested dipping from 13875 to only 953. Since then, workplace investigations have all but ceased; the INS argues that they are not effective because the 1986 Act offers only the weakest of employer sanctions. Face it: illegal immigrants are a cheap, convenient solution for greedy business. Perhaps you should fire some warning shots over employers' heads. But I doubt that you'd have the balls to take your principles that far. Wetbacks make easier targets. I think I can honestly say that this would not be enough for me to fire a gun at, or near people. At some point you have to take some perspective: is this enough reason to risk killing a man over? Or a woman, or child? I don't think so. I think you just enjoy pointing guns at a soft target. I think that if you really felt that strongly about illegal immigration, you'd be forcefully campaigning with your congressman for their employers to be prosecuted. You'd boycot the cheaper hotels and pay for the more expensive one that isn't cleaned by an illegal immigrant maid. You'd be finding out which companies use illegals and simply not give them your business. The stakes are being raised all the time, and you are taking an active part in that. More illegal immigrants are dying in the attempt to cross: in 1996, it was 21 (for Texas); in 2000, it was 269 --a nearly twelvefold increase. More smugglers are getting involved. People are getting more desperate. The day will come that you shoot over some people's heads, and someone returns fire. With a machine gun. Guns are serious business. Very serious business. Forensic evidence would confirm whether the boy was on his knees when shot in the back, or whether he was lunging at Mr. Gonzales. As I said: I empathise with him. What he did was manslaughter, but with extenuating circumstances. I don't think anyone in this thread suggests that all Americans should be screwed (well, not any more than some people here think illegal immigrants should be). But I will challenge people who justify discharging a firearm towards another human being based on rather uninformed political opinion and prejudice. I don't like a lot of people, for various reasons, but that is not nearly enough reason for me to shoot at them.
